“We’re from the Nanny State, and we’re here to kill you.”
Canadian researchers have discovered that folic acid consumed during pregnancy can alter the gene function of offspring, potentially affecting their susceptibility to disease.
The finding is part of a growing – and controversial – body of research that raises serious questions about whether long-term consumption of folate and folic acid may increase the risk of developing certain cancers in some people.
The debate is far from benign. Food manufacturers are required to add folic acid to enriched flour and grain products under federal regulations that came into force in 1998. The premise behind fortification, which was also mandated in the United States, is to ensure that women receive adequate levels of folate in order to reduce the risk of birth defects in their offspring.
A decade later, however, new research and scientific studies have found evidence that increased consumption of folic acid may help trigger the onset of colon and other types of cancer.
I have a simple request of those politicians, career bureaucrats, and other professional public policy meddlers who believe they have a special obligation to their fellow citizens to legislate what we eat, what we drive, what we say, how we play, and when to come in from the midday sun – would you please kindly go f%$# yourselves, now?
My only consolation is the knowledge that once in a while, the family member you kill might be your own.
(Note: the comments section at the G&M is particularly critical of the quality of reporting on the article quoted. It’s a fine example of nanny mentality in action – public policy by lowest common denominator bureaucratic consensus, communicated by the best that uncomprehending journalism has to offer.)
h/t nv53
Hi Griff, not calling you out or anything, but the public health thing has been used and abused by liberals since the 1950’s to jam all manner of restrictions down our throats in the name of safety.
You mentioned seat belts and fluoridation. These things are often mentioned as successes, and I’ll even throw in another one, helmet laws.
The question is not “do these regulations sometimes work?” because obviously -sometimes- they do. Its an ill wind that blows no good.
No, the real question is, what is the social COST of government having the power to do that? My contention is that the cost is extremely large already. Like, half your income going to tax kinda large. But that is merely the monetary cost. What is the cost to our social life and our personal, moral life of having Big Brother manage all these details so we can stumble around in a haze?
I don’t -want- mandated fluoridation and food supplementation. I’ll get my own. I want to live in a country where the government is A) not allowed and B) insufficiently funded to be able to get into these kinds of things. They suck at it and its none of their damn business anyway.
Tell you something else, if women bore the full-up cost of a spina bif baby, they’d be taking their folic acid bigtime.
“I would add flu vaccine to your list Kate.It’s a huge can of worms…too large to open here.”
It’s funny you say that. My employer pays a free flu vaccine yearly, you need just sign up. When I was asked why I don’t get vaccinated I responded “I’ve never had the flu, so why would I?” I suppose that’s not very scientific of me, but I made it another year and I didn’t get a needle that made me feel crappy for a day.
Indiana Homez……I get my shot free every year because my better half has chronic asthma.For me,it is a matter of a sore arm for half a day,or my wife in the ICU or worse…BUT…..it is still MY choice,not the gubermint’s.I think that was the point Kate was getting across.
Since choice is the crux of this discussion, I’ll let you in on how my employer operates:
Apparently we have a ‘choice’ to receive the flu vaccine, but if we choose to not have the vaccine we cannot go to work.
That’ government interference.
I’m reading through some of the comments above and shaking my head at some of you hypocrites. On one day, you’ll rail and rant about the failure of society to consider good, broad-based science in relation to climate study, and rightly so. But today, you’ll slag incredibly successful public health measures based on good science in favour of some one-off tangent. Then you change gears and say, “I want to make the choice myself.” Well that’s not how public health measures work. One jackass refuses to vaccinate their kid, and the kid’s whole class is at risk because not everyone seroconverts. One loser health care worker refuses flu vaccine, and vectors it into a whole nursing home (5% mortality rate for age 70+). One teenager gets knocked up and keeps the baby, has a spina bifida child, the kid is disabled their whole life. I have seen tremendous advances in my patients’ average health over the course of my career, from the tireless work of faceless scientists working on these kind of public health measures. Shame on you selfish people who would ignore good science in favour of some glorified rumour; you serve to deny all of us all the benefits. And you are ABSLOUTELY NO BETTER than the AGW pop science crowd when you do.
The journalist, Carly Weeks, is an early twenties feminist who used to write for the Citizen and some student papers, I’ve seen her work, she’s a lefty. These pig-ignorant television watchers think people in their 30s and 40s and 50s are stupid, and need talking down to, that’s why the article is extra stupid. It’s actually stupid – talking down to stupid.
Are you people sure you still want women in the work force? Like, fake cancer reports, how much worse does it get before we start asking questions?
turtle…like that shell you are in? Are you waiting for the government to take you out or are you in there by choice?
I for one want the government to back off and stop interfering with my body.
One of my co-workers became gravely ill from the flu vaccine, which is useless.In fact in my department staff that got the vaccine were sicker than staff that didn’t.
@ Griff
I always told my undergraduate students, it is never good enought to just read an abstract. One has to consider the whole article and moreover break it down and look for errors and bias.
If you read your reference carefully (and it is one of the most widely referenced ones in this area) you notice that the confidence intervals of rate difference in places like BC actually approach 0.
Which means that statistically the law may actually have done nothing in that province to reduce the rate.
The other interesting thing I would like to point out in general is while we mandate everyone to consume folate for the sake of preventing neural tube defects in pregnancy I can do nothing when I encounter a pregnant patient who intends on carrying to term, stuffs her body with cocaine and methamphetamines causing the inevitable lifetime destruction of a new human being.
We get all high on the hoss about a relatively rare birth defect on one hand the rate of which is lowered by mandatory supplementation and yet my hand’s are tied for the sake of a woman’s right to choose what to do with her body and a human being she intends on carrying to term on the other hand.
It is a frustrating double standard because essentially leftists lack the balls to tackle issues that require balls…
@ loki,
Yeah I do see the occasional woman who is pregnant and has no idea of folic acid, yet by and large I see quite a number who do know. Still you likely see way more than I do based on the nature of our practices. Btw no evidence exists that I have come across that folate supplementaion increases B12 deficiency in pregancy.
Turtle said: “Shame on you selfish people who would ignore good science in favour of some glorified rumour; you serve to deny all of us all the benefits.”
That means “shut up”, right turtle? I call into question the cost vs. benefit of allowing government meddling in the realm of public health, and you come in here to shame me into being quiet.
I decline your invitation, sir/madam.
If you are a medical professional, you know that -all- treatments and drugs have side effects. Even sewers and aqueducts, the oldest public health efforts in Western society have side effects. Not all those effects are benign.
I maintain that I am in a better position to make decisions about my health than you are, regardless of your expertise or exalted position. Argue with that if you must, but don’t be telling me to shut up.
Tell ya what folks – we’ll have a compromise.
All of you who think folate supplementation shouldn’t be mandated by public health agencies because you feel it should be *your* choice alone to supplement your diet can have your way.
We’ll end the fortification regulations, and take out the folic acid.
But it’s YOUR job from here on out to explain to those born with spina bifida and other neural tube defects that they have to live their life with a crippling disability just so you can feel good about your ‘choice’.
Oh, and you can explain to crying mothers why their baby was born without the back of its head too, while you’re at it.
http://www.gfmer.ch/genetic_diseases_v2/gendis_detail_list.php?cat3=25
@ Dr. Brent,
Yeah and we should also charge pregnant farmers who live on non government approved non processed food with endangering the lives of their future children. Let’s have a mature debate shall we?
Kate brings up an important point, that there can be harmful side effects from the best intentions.
As an MD I realize this myself and will do my best to inform patients of the best evidence available and allow them to make their own decisions based upon it. I think that when there are harmful side effects from our interventions patients are more at peace knowing they made their own decision instead of feeling like I forced them into it.
Like I said to Griff using the evidence he provided, the supplementation may easily have done nothing beneficial in places like British Columbia. Which brings up the inevitable question of potential harm.
Personally I am more inclined to encourage women of pregnancy ages to highly supplement (as even with the current food mandate most women (1/4) don’t reach the necessary level) rather than use mandatory food supplementation. Still I am split on this issue.
Environmentalism + socialism = cannibalism.
Herewith: the cult of thanatoSS, aka Death.
…-
“Lobby group claims Australia should reduce population to seven million
AUSTRALIA should consider having a one-child policy to protect the planet, an environmental lobby group said. Sustainable Population Australia told The Daily Telegraph that slashing population was the only way to avoid “environmental suicide”.
National president Sandra Kanck wants Australia’s population of almost 22 million reduced to seven million to tackle climate change.”
urlm.in/cdrt
(to correct what I said) Even with the current food folate supplementation mandate MOST women 3/4 do not reach the required serum folate level. In other words only 1/4 do reach it. Which means voluntary supplementation provides a likely potential reduction in neural tube defects.
Simply women planning on pregnancy still need to supplement with folic acid anyway regardless of big brother’s best intentions.
This is why we mock you, and hold tea parties.
Tax cut now please.
Tell it to your Dear Leader, Nanny Steve, Phantom. The yahoos are in charge, or didn’t you get the memo?
I do, pillboy. All the time. The CPC is pretty good at writing back too, unlike the Lieberals.
Stevie is not my dream Prime Minister, he’s the least-bad alternative out of what’s on offer. We’ve got light pink CPC, red Liberal and fire engine red NDP, with the Blocheads vacillating between fascism and communism weekly. Making Harper the lesser of four weevils, if you will.
That said, Stevie is not the guy who set all this up, and he is at least not moving in the wrong direction just at the moment. I’ll take what I can get.
Tax cut now, pillboy.
Dr. Brent, I’ll tell all the mummies who have spina biff babies what happened if you’ll tell all the mummies who lose kids to robbers why you supported gun control.
Or you could get down off the horse and have a discussion, instead of defaulting to the SHUT UP!!! position.
I have examined the article I referenced (and others similar to it) at some length (posted the abstract and citation for quick reference for other readers) and while you are correct that rate differences in pre and post-fortification (/1000 births) drop close to zero at the bottom range of the CI for British Columbia, they are substantially higher in eastern provinces, particularly for my province of Newfoundland and Labrador. (difference of 3.80/1000 births, 2.89-4.71). PEI and Nova Scotia experienced similar significant drops, with pre and post-fortification rate differences decreasing the further west you go (concordant with lower pre-fortification incidences in the first place). Essentially, there isn’t much difference in rates out west because rates were lower in the first place (which *may* suggest possible increased folate intakes prior to fortification)
While it is wonderful to see that western provinces have a reduced incidence in neural tube defects, the higher rates occurring further east and the significant decrease in the rate of defects subsequent to the introduction of folate fortification suggest that this initiative, as a public health measure, is quite worthwhile.
However your point re: BC and the western provinces is very much valid, as we especially need to consider the potential risks involved if the benefits appear to be negligible. Hopefully public health agencies will be responsive to these concerns in the future should substantial evidence build.
lastly : You are absolutely right about inadequate folate levels in pregnant mothers, I wish it were higher!
Our Enemy, The State.
Socialism is a cannibal.
…-
“Kids, it’s cool to sign that donor card
Globe and Mail – 18 hours ago
Young people in Ontario are the targets of a blunt new campaign designed to drive up the number of organ and tissue donors in the province.
Youth asked to give the gift of life Toronto Sun”
griff, still dodging the issue of mandated fortification vs. any other method?
“…as we especially need to consider the potential risks involved if the benefits appear to be negligible.”
Top-down central planning is a very blunt instrument, one best left unused except in the gravest extreme. Hence my point above.
Tax cut now, pillboy.
No argument from me on that score. Although you’ll probably get one from your fellow travelers.
On the contrary, I’m not dodging it, I just think we have to be practical about it. The rates of coronary heart disease would sink like a stone ‘if only’ people just exercised more and ate a healthier diet; try getting them to do that, though! There is an argument to be made there for social darwinism and personal choice, i know, but unlike people who can’t be bothered with diet and exercise, the case of folate supplementation involves tiny babies who don’t have a choice and I’m very partial to take their side, given the supporting evidence.
‘Evidence’ establishing a link with cancer is so far quite tenuous, while the evidence for a decrease in congenital defects with supplementation is very much apparent. In short, it hasn’t been proven to do any harm, but it has darn well done a lot of good.
That’s why, while I agree that you are speaking from an extremely commendable and principled position, I have to disagree with you; saving babies’ lives and preventing extremely serious congenital defects through phenomenal public health policy trumps a comparatively trivial concern over the government making you eat your vitamins.
Cheers, and thanks for the great discussion everyone. 🙂
My first h/t (I think)!!! *blush*
The benefits of folic acid and folates in reducing spina bifida and neural tube defects have been touted for a while, while the report on their supposed links to prostate and other cancers are apparently new. But, as at least one commenter noted, the chemical mix in the human body is so complex that many substances can be harmful either in excess or in deprivation. The question is where the boundaries are.
Another example already noted here is sunshine and Vitamin D. Not enough D causes certain problems, but too much sunshine can cause melanoma. Are we going to have “public health”-mandated required levels of exposure to sunshine? With penalties for getting a bad suntan? They too have been linked to skin cancer, and (like, say, smoking) would therefore correlate to increased expenses for socialized medicine.
Science often finds new evidence and in effect “changes its mind”. Recall the famous Australian experiment on stomach ulcers and helicobacter pylori in 1984. Recently, some were questioning the long-held belief that exercise in school can reduce overweightness among children.
The point is that it is the right of the individual to follow the science (or not) and to make up his own mind. “Public health”, if that is a concept that has any use whatsoever, which is doubtful, does not come into it.
It’s funny how many good things go bad when “public” is put in front of them: education, health, property, interest, etc.
“the turtle” said this: “‘I want to make the choice myself.’ Well that’s not how public health measures work.”
So apparently “public health” means government coercion into certain measures “for your own good”, for which the science may change next year and they turn out to be bad. No thanks. If individual choice is “not how public health measures work”, then forget the public health measures. Like many bureaucratic programs, they have all the hallmarks of nanny-state make-work, whether of value or not. And you can bet that, when one of these initiatives turns out to be bad and people suffer, the government and its minions will not take any responsibility for it.
Phantom should have the last word, because he summed it up nicely: “The problem is not folate per se, its the friggin’ nanny state mandates. They are actively dangerous because they get imposed based on incomplete or even flatly wrong science.”
Griff
Yes I realize that folic acid is needed in the very early days of pregnancy. That’s why Sask Health wanted to put it into the at-risk females’ everyday diets. As I said, bread and beer were considered to be their staples.
From the folks who sanctioned Thelidomide for mornig sik mothers, flouride for kids teeth and hydrogenated fats rather than omegas.
The deadly string of social engineering experiments is long.
The only thing one can conclude from Nanny’s constant deadly advice is that the old girl is trying to trim our numbers back because abortion, euthenasian and neo-eugenics are not working fast enough for her liking.
“Food is a weapon.” – Max Litvinov – Soviet Commissar of Foreign Affairs
The three maxims of deception:
1) The check is in the mail
2) Here’s my e-mail address, I’ll call you next week.
3) I’m from the government and I’m here to help.
Why don’t pregnant women just take a folic acid supplement and leave the rest of us out of it?
Posted by: Kyla
I’ll tell you why. They are too damn lazy,stupid and indifferent.
Folic acid isn’t the only hassle with bread – which I’ve quit eating for over 10 years now, since the government forced the addition of folic acid in 1998 and about the same time encouraged the millers to add calcium. In the same period peoples paranoia over sodium intake seems to have led to replacing sodium proprionate as a mould inhibitor with calcium proprionate, all of which makes the bread taste like plaster. I have not been able to find one decent tasting loaf of bread since 1998 – all plaster trash.
And when I write our baloney Federal Health Ministry I get a dumb response from a Mr. King (6 months later) who suggests I try whole grain product. I had already been eating that for 40 years before the damned Anti-Christ government (they swear oaths in defiance of Christ’s instruction) destroyed natural bread with this legislated poisoning.
This has seriously affected my ability to eat well and I have lost weight because of it. At age 77 I am damn tired of dogdung government.
Yes, there is a liberal conspiracy out to get you everywhere. You can make up your own mind about folic acid, or vitamins, or chiropractic, smoking (!)or even the hazard of riding a motorcycle (see:the ride2die website based on NHSTA data).
And the modern neo-con is no different from the hyper-sensitive liberal. The modern “nanny” state is sustained as much by neo-conservative stupidity than it is of any liberal looking for a hand-out. We get the government that we are: divisive, bickering, stagnant. If you/we don’t like a centralized gov. in a large country the Constitution allows for your own nation.
Our conservative parents, gandparents and on didn’t: blame, whine,point fingers. Their lives were much more careful and they had to be become, through circumstance, adults. Real adults (myself included). We need more adults.
Iwon’t be back to this site again: it’s neither conservative nor informative.